this post was submitted on 30 May 2025
13 points (84.2% liked)
CanadaPolitics
2757 readers
5 users here now
Placeholder for any r/CanadaPolitics refugees
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
@[email protected] 's point is subsidizing first time buyers allows for affordability without lowering prices. It in fact, increases prices of starter homes because of the subsidy, but only while the subsidy lasts.
A balanced policy would be government construction companies that build small market housing that is affordable due to being small, that ramps activity up and down based on trailing 5 years home appreciation being 15% (3%/year).
This is a zero cost program. Subsidies cost money, without solving problem.
Exactly, we mostly agree. Demand subsidy is yet another way to enable price increases. It doesn't really make housing more affordable. So that's why agree with you that subsidies cost money without solving the problem.
Now this is good, despite all the hot feelings regarding affordability right now, it is true that in the last two years several markets have observed real estate performing below inflation, which is good. We just need this to last 20 years to go back to a healthier market. In the mean time, subsidies can help the families that cannot wait 20 years to afford housing, so I'm not against demand subsidy - I'm just against the notion that subsidies are good for affordability, they're not.
Prices have to decrease, period. We can put some makeup on this and trick homeowners into satisfaction by having some nominal increase without accounting for inflation... but just being real (pun intended), prices have to decrease. Price net of inflation is the number that matters, and it has to go down. Real returns on housing has to be negative, sustained over decades.
It's about policy to not completely screw over home owners. Policy to pretend to do something is motivated by protecting home owners while concern troll gaslighting. An explicit bargain to give "fair gains" to home owners while solving housing affordability is an honest one. Federal government doesn't need to be involved at all other than perhaps providing cheap credit to "city owned housing development and construction company".
From city perspective, more housing is more property taxes. There is a ROI to it for all residents if city spending is efficient and valuable. Denser housing means more commercial revenue and tax potential.
Decreasing home values can get banks in trouble, and they rule, which is why nothing ever gets done. Limiting price increases to fair amounts is only practical political possibility.
There is no “fair” real estate appreciation, and a nominal increase slightly below inflation is not screwing anyone over. Homeowners will be fine, this is the one thing that is for certain in all of this